W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > October 2019

Re: Summary and Minutes of Silver Conformance Subgroup Meeting of 15 October 2019

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:19:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbtvgjEd7xodZqSRO5yPfAib1gW+ED=Fte5F4fKL5PchQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Regarding the EM which was created in 2014, there seem to be several
overlaps with Peter's document.

1) Like the document Peter is working on, the EM moves away from the "every
page has to conform for the site to conform" model.
2) The section on automation demonstrates that there are many pages on a
large commercial site that would only get an automated crawl ... (only
templates, components, sample pages, process steps etc. get a full
evaluation)
3) It addresses large commercial sites that are "like a city" where things
are being built and removed constantly.
4) It functionally amends the WCAG 2.0 conformance model

Hopefully, a new conformance model will emerge that will do better.
Currently, I think its the best we have.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:55 PM Jeanne Spellman <
jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> == Summary ==
>
> 1) Reviewed the comments from the AGWG meeting today about the
> Challenges of Conformance document.  Jeanne thought it was well
> received.  A member of AGWG said that WCAG-EM addressed all the problems
> in the Challenges document.  Peter reviewed WCAG-EM before the Silver
> meeting and didn't see a lot of congruence. Jeanne agreed.  Jeanne and
> Shawn had discussed the publication priorities after the AGWG call and
> doubt that we would have time to publish it in November.
>
> 2) We reviewed where we left off last week on Conformance minimum.  We
> discussed the email from Leonie about removing all levels.  Some
> feedback: a) that some minimum is needed to use Silver in a regulatory
> environment (a requirement), b) it didn't provide any protection from an
> organization scoring all their points for one disability and ignoring
> others, and c) the scoring would need to be set up so it didn't have a
> top, since new methods are always being added.
>
> 3) Angela suggested looking at individual functional need areas by how
> well the overall site met the needs of people in that functional need
> area.  She is going to look at it in more detail.
>
> == Minutes ==
>
> https://www.w3.org/2019/10/15-silver-conf-minutes.html
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 14:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:46 UTC